Sports Medicine

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 57–69 | Cite as

Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods

  • Olivier de Hon
  • Harm Kuipers
  • Maarten van Bottenburg
Review Article

Abstract

The prevalence of doping in elite sports is relevant for all those involved in sports, particularly for evaluating anti-doping policy measures. Remarkably, few scientific articles have addressed this subject so far, and the last review dates back to 1997. As a consequence, the true prevalence of doping in elite sports is unknown. Even though it is virtually impossible to uncover the exact prevalence of a prohibited activity such as doping, various methods are available to uncover parts of this particular problem, which enables the circumvention (to a certain degree) of the issues of truthfulness, definition problems and the limits of pharmacological evidence. This review outlines the various methods that exist and presents the scarce data available in this area. It is concluded that a combination of questionnaires using the Randomised Response Technique and models of biological parameters is able to provide the statistical possibilities to reveal accurate estimates of this often undisclosed practice. Data gathered in this way yield an estimation of 14–39 % of current adult elite athletes who intentionally used doping. These period prevalences have been found in specific sub-groups of elite athletes, and the available data suggest that the prevalence of doping is considerably different between sub-groups with varying types of sport, levels and nationalities. The above-mentioned figure of 14–39 % is likely to be a more accurate reflection of the prevalence of intentional doping in elite sports than that provided by doping control test results (estimate of doping: 1–2 % annually) or questionnaire-based research (estimations between 1 and 70 % depending on sport, level and exact definitions of intent and doping). In the future, analytical science may play a more important role in this topic if it may become feasible to detect very low concentrations of prohibited substances in sewage systems downstream of major sporting events. However, it is clear that current doping control test results show a distinct underestimation of true doping prevalence. It does not seem feasible to distil better estimates of the prevalence of doping based on performance indicators or ego documents because of the various existing effects that influence athletic performance. Such information can only be used as extra information to augment the accuracy of prevalence rates that have been found by using other techniques. True doping prevalence studies have been scarce in elite sports so far. With the correct application of the available scientific methods, preferably using harmonised definitions of the terms ‘doping’ and ‘elite sports’, more information on this topic may be gathered in a relatively short time. This would assist anti-doping professionals in the future in order to evaluate the effects of possible anti-doping measures, and better anti-doping policies would serve athletes who compete without doping. The existing anti-doping measures seriously impact the lives of elite athletes and their immediate entourage, which imposes a moral burden to evaluate these measures in the best possible way.

Notes

Acknowledgments

OdH started the initiative to write this review, collected all literature and wrote most of the text. Both MvB and HK contributed to the set-up, structure and content. OdH holds the position of Manager Scientific Affairs for the national anti-doping organisation of the Netherlands. None of the authors have any other potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

The issue of prevalence of doping in elite sports has been thoroughly discussed with many anti-doping professionals and athletes over the past few years, and all these colleagues and athletes are gratefully acknowledged for their enthusiasm and critical questions. The time to write this review was made available by means of a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports.

References

  1. 1.
    USADA. U.S. postal service pro cycling team investigation. Colorado Springs, United States of America: United States Anti-Doping Agency; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sorgdrager W, van Bottenburg M, Goedhart E. Joining or Quitting [Original Title: ‘Meedoen of Stoppen’]. Arnhem, The Netherlands; 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Laure P. Epidemiologic approach of doping in sport. A review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1997;37(3):218–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hatton CK. Beyond sports-doping headlines: the science of laboratory tests for performance-enhancing drugs. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2007;54(4):713–33 (xi).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lentillon-Kaestner V, Ohl F. Can we measure accurately the prevalence of doping? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):e132–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Angelo C, Tamburrini C. Addict to win? A different approach to doping. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(11):700–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A. Viewpoint: legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs. Lancet. 2005;366(Suppl 1):S21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A. Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal. BMC Med Ethics. 2007;8:2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNamee MJ, Tarasti L. Juridical and ethical peculiarities in doping policy. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(3):165–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savulescu J, Foddy B, Clayton M. Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(6):666–70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berning JM, Adams KJ, Stamford BA. Anabolic steroid usage in athletics: facts, fiction, and public relations. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):908–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkins PJ. Growth hormone and exercise: physiology, use and abuse. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2001;11(Suppl A):S71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    WADA. The 2013 Prohibited List International Standard. Montreal, Canada: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2012.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    WADA. Laboratory testing figures. Montreal, Canada 2012 [30 May 2013]; Available from: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medicine/Anti-Doping-Laboratories/Laboratory-Testing-Figures/. Accessed 11 July 2014.
  16. 16.
    Bowers LD. The analytical chemistry of drug monitoring in athletes. Annu Rev Anal Chem (Palo Alto Calif). 2009;2:485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Catlin DH, Fitch KD, Ljungqvist A. Medicine and science in the fight against doping in sport. J Intern Med. 2008;264(2):99–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lentillon-Kaestner V. The development of doping use in high-level cycling: from team-organized doping to advances in the fight against doping. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(2):189–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voet W. Prikken en slikken [original title: Massacre a la chaine]. Roeselare: Roularta Books NV; 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    IOC. IOC disqualifies four medallists from Athens 2004 following further analysis of stored samples. Lausanne, Switzerland 2012 [30 May 2013]; Available from: http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-disqualifies-four-medallists-from-athens-2004-following-further-analysis-of-stored-samples/184931.
  21. 21.
    CNN. Ramzi stripped of Olympic 1500 m gold. Atlanta, USA 2009 [30 May 2013]; Available from: http://www.cnn.org/2009/SPORT/11/18/athletics.olympics.ramzi.doping/index.html.
  22. 22.
    Le Ressiot D. Mensonge Armstrong [The Armstrong Lie]. L’Equipe. 2005;2005:23.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verroken M. Ethical aspects and the prevalence of hormone abuse in sport. J Endocrinol. 2001;170(1):49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bahr R, Tjornhom M. Prevalence of doping in sports: doping control in Norway, 1977–1995. Clin J Sport Med. 1998;8(1):32–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer W, Taylor S, Wingate A. Adverse analyzing—a European study of anti doping organization reporting practices and the efficacy of drug testing athletes. Switzerland: UNI Global Union; 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strano Rossi S, Botre F. Prevalence of illicit drug use among the Italian athlete population with special attention on drugs of abuse: a 10-year review. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(5):471–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Merwe PJ, Kruger HS. Drugs in sport—results of the past 6 years of dope testing in South Africa. S Afr Med J. 1992;82(3):151–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maquirriain J. Epidemiological analysis of doping offences in the professional tennis circuit. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2010;5:30.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pluim B. A doping sinner is not always a cheat. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(7):549–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zorzoli M, Rossi F. Implementation of the biological passport: the experience of the International Cycling Union. Drug Test Anal. 2010;2(11–12):542–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Videman T, Lereim I, Hemmingsson P, et al. Changes in hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers from 1987–1999. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(2):98–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Manfredini F, Carrabre JE, Litmanen H, et al. Blood tests and fair competition: the biathlon experience. Int J Sports Med. 2003;24(5):352–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sottas PE, Robinson N, Saugy M, et al. A forensic approach to the interpretation of blood doping markers. Law Probab Risk. 2008;7(3):191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sottas PE, Robinson N, Saugy M. The athlete’s biological passport and indirect markers of blood doping. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;195:305–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sottas PE, Saudan C, Saugy M. Doping: a paradigm shift has taken place in testing. Nature. 2008;455(7210):166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sottas PE, Robinson N, Fischetto G, et al. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem. 2011;57(5):762–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vouillamoz M, Thom C, Grisdale R, et al. Anti-doping testing at the 2008 European football championship. Drug Test Anal. 2009;1(11–12):485–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stray-Gundersen J, Videman T, Penttila I, et al. Abnormal hematologic profiles in elite cross-country skiers: blood doping or? Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(3):132–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuipers H, Moran J, Dubravcic-Simunjak S, et al. Hemoglobin level in elite speed skaters from 2000 up to 2005, and its relationship with competitive results. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(1):16–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kuipers H, Moran J, Mitchell DW, et al. Hemoglobin levels and athletic performance in elite speed skaters during the Olympic season 2006. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(2):135–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sottas PE, Saudan C, Schweizer C, et al. From population- to subject-based limits of T/E ratio to detect testosterone abuse in elite sports. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;174(2–3):166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schumacher YO, Saugy M, Pottgiesser T, et al. Detection of EPO doping and blood doping: the haematological module of the Athlete Biological Passport. Drug Test Anal. 2012;4:846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schroder HF, Gebhardt W, Thevis M. Anabolic, doping, and lifestyle drugs, and selected metabolites in wastewater-detection, quantification, and behaviour monitored by high-resolution MS and MS(n) before and after sewage treatment. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;398(3):1207–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reid MJ, Langford KH, Grung M, et al. Estimation of cocaine consumption in the community: a critical comparison of the results from three complimentary techniques. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bahrke MS, Yesalis CE. Abuse of anabolic androgenic steroids and related substances in sport and exercise. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2004;4(6):614–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bahrke MS, Yesalis CE, Kopstein AN, et al. Risk factors associated with anabolic-androgenic steroid use among adolescents. Sports Med. 2000;29(6):397–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Castillo EM, Comstock RD. Prevalence of use of performance-enhancing substances among United States adolescents. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2007;54(4):663–75 (ix–x).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kindlundh AM, Isacson DG, Berglund L, et al. Doping among high school students in Uppsala, Sweden: a presentation of the attitudes, distribution, side effects, and extent of use. Scand J Soc Med. 1998;26(1):71–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Laure P, Binsinger C. Doping prevalence among preadolescent athletes: a 4-year follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(10):660–3 (discussion 3).PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sjoqvist F, Garle M, Rane A. Use of doping agents, particularly anabolic steroids, in sports and society. Lancet. 2008;371(9627):1872–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Amsterdam J, Opperhuizen A, Hartgens F. Adverse health effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010;57(1):117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    vandenBerg P, Neumark-Sztainer D, Cafri G, et al. Steroid use among adolescents: longitudinal findings from Project EAT. Pediatrics. 2007;119(3):476–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nilsson S, Baigi A, Marklund B, et al. The prevalence of the use of androgenic anabolic steroids by adolescents in a county of Sweden. Eur J Public Health. 2001;11(2):195–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Terney R, McLain LG. The use of anabolic steroids in high school students. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144(1):99–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Papadopoulos FC, Skalkidis I, Parkkari J, et al. Doping use among tertiary education students in six developed countries. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(4):307–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wanjek B, Rosendahl J, Strauss B, et al. Doping, drugs and drug abuse among adolescents in the State of Thuringia (Germany): prevalence, knowledge and attitudes. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(4):346–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Windsor R, Dumitru D. Prevalence of anabolic steroid use by male and female adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989;21(5):494–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yesalis CE, Bahrke MS. Anabolic-androgenic steroids. Current issues. Sports Med. 1995;19(5):326–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thevis M, Sauer M, Geyer H, et al. Determination of the prevalence of anabolic steroids, stimulants, and selected drugs subject to doping controls among elite sport students using analytical chemistry. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(10):1059–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Melnik BC. Androgen abuse in the community. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2009;16(3):218–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Baker JS, Graham M, Davies B. Gym users and abuse of prescription drugs. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(7):331–2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Baker JS, Graham MR, Davies B. Steroid and prescription medicine abuse in the health and fitness community: a regional study. Eur J Intern Med. 2006;17(7):479–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Evans NA. Current concepts in anabolic-androgenic steroids. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):534–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bolding G, Sherr L, Elford J. Use of anabolic steroids and associated health risks among gay men attending London gyms. Addiction. 2002;97(2):195–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Da Silva PR, Machado LC Jr, Figueiredo VC, et al. Prevalence of the use of anabolic agents among strength training apprentices in Porto Alegre, RS. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007;51(1):104–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Graham MR, Davies B, Grace FM, et al. Anabolic steroid use: patterns of use and detection of doping. Sports Med. 2008;38(6):505–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Striegel H, Simon P, Frisch S, et al. Anabolic ergogenic substance users in fitness-sports: a distinct group supported by the health care system. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(1):11–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tricker R, O’Neill MR, Cook D. The incidence of anabolic steroid use among competitive bodybuilders. J Drug Educ. 1989;19(4):313–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kanayama G, Gruber AJ, Pope HG Jr, et al. Over-the-counter drug use in gymnasiums: an underrecognized substance abuse problem? Psychother Psychosom. 2001;70(3):137–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Petroczi A, Aidman EV, Hussain I, et al. Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10457.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Petroczi A, Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust? PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18804.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Striegel H, Ulrich R, Simon P. Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;106(2–3):230–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Secades-Villa R, Fernandez-Hermida JR. The validity of self-reports in a follow-up study with drug addicts. Addict Behav. 2003;28(6):1175–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Stone AL, Latimer WW. Adolescent substance use assessment: concordance between tools using self-administered and interview formats. Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40(12):1865–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goldman B, Bush P, Klatz R. Death in the locker room. United States: Icarus Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Connor J, Woolf J, Mazanov J. Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(11):697–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox J, Van der Heijden P, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: thirty-five years of validation. Sociol Methods Res. 2005;33:319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox J, Van der Heijden P. How to improve the efficiency of randomized response designs. Qual Quant. 2005;39:253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc. 2007;4(2):89–102.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stubbe JH, Chorus AMJ, Frank LE, et al. Prevalence of use of performance enhancing drugs by fitness center members. Drug Test Anal. 2013;6(5):434–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Simon P, Striegel H, Aust F, et al. Doping in fitness sports: estimated number of unreported cases and individual probability of doping. Addiction. 2006;101(11):1640–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Seiler S, Beneke R, Halson SL, et al. Is doping-free sport a Utopia? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013;8(1):1–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zhong W, Wu H, Li L. Olympics: some facts about Ye Shiwen’s swim. Nature. 2012;488(7412):459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Vayer A. La preuve par 21. 2013 [17 June 2013]; Available from: http://www.alternativeditions.com/la-preuve-par-21/.
  85. 85.
    Savage M. Armstrong in context. 2012 [17 June 2013]; Available from: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html.
  86. 86.
    Tucker R, Dugas J. The anatomy of a climb: Contador on the Verbier—its place in Tour climbing “history”; 2009 [17 June 2013]; Available from: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html.
  87. 87.
    Noakes TD. Tainted glory—doping and athletic performance. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(9):847–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Seiler S, De Koning JJ, Foster C. The fall and rise of the gender difference in elite anaerobic performance 1952–2006. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(3):534–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Hartgens F, Kuipers H. Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes. Sports Med. 2004;34(8):513–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Berthelot G, Tafflet M, El Helou N, et al. Athlete atypicity on the edge of human achievement: performances stagnate after the last peak, in 1988. PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8800.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Berthelot G, Thibault V, Tafflet M, et al. The citius end: world records progression announces the completion of a brief ultra-physiological quest. PLoS One. 2008;3(2):e1552.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lippi G, Banfi G, Favaloro EJ, et al. Updates on improvement of human athletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. Br Med Bull. 2008;87:7–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lodewijkx HF, Brouwer B. Some empirical notes on the epo epidemic in professional cycling. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(4):740–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    El Helou N, Berthelot G, Thibault V, et al. Tour de France, Giro, Vuelta, and classic European races show a unique progression of road cycling speed in the last 20 years. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(7):789–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ernst S, Simon P. A quantitative approach for assessing significant improvements in elite sprint performance: has IGF-1 entered the arena? Drug Test Anal. 2013;5(6):384-9.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    De Rijckaert E. zaak Festina–Het recht van antwoord van dokter Eric Rijckaert [The Festina case—the right to an answer by doctor Eric Rijckaert]. Belgium: Uitgeverij Lannoo NV; 2000.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Dekker T. Schoon genoeg [Clean enough]. Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers; 2011.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hamilton T, Coyle D. The secret race—inside the hidden world of the Tour de France: doping, cover-ups, and winning at all costs. USA: Bantam Books; 2012.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Millar D, Whittle J. Racing through the dark. London: Orion Books; 2011.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Matschiner S, Behr M. Grenzwertig: Aus dem Leben eines Dopingdealers [Threshold-worthy: out of the life of a doping dealer]. Germany: Riva Sportverlag; 2011.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Canseco J. Juiced: wild times, rampant’ roids, smash hits, and how baseball got big. USA: William Morrow; 2005.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lentillon-Kaestner V, Carstairs C. Doping use among young elite cyclists: a qualitative psychosociological approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(2):336–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ohl F, Fincoeur B, Lentillon-Kaestner V, et al. The socialization of young cyclists and the culture of doping. Int Rev Sociol Sport. Epub 24 July 2013.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Petroczi A, Mazanov J, Nepusz T, et al. Comfort in big numbers: does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement? J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008;3:19.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Press A. WADA: 1 in 10 may be doping. 2012 [updated 30 May 2013]; Available from: http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/7550694/wada-says-research-indicates-1-10-athletes-doping.
  106. 106.
    Donovan RJ, Egger G, Kapernick V, et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med. 2002;32(4):269–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Morente-Sanchez J, Zabala M. Doping in sport: a review of elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge. Sports Med. 2013;43(6):395–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Marclay F, Grata E, Perrenoud L, et al. A one-year monitoring of nicotine use in sport: frontier between potential performance enhancement and addiction issues. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;213(1–3):73–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Puffer JC. The use of drugs in swimming. Clin Sports Med. 1986;5(1):77–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    SportAccord. Definition of sport. Lausanne, Switzerland 2013 [30 May 2013]; Available from: http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/definition-of-sport/.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier de Hon
    • 1
  • Harm Kuipers
    • 2
  • Maarten van Bottenburg
    • 3
  1. 1.Anti-Doping Authority The NetherlandsCapelle aan den IJsselThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life SciencesMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Utrecht University School of GovernanceUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations